RE: [gnso-rn-wg] 2nd level single character proposal

["Mike Rodenbaugh" <mxr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I think GNSO is perfectly capable of recommending allocation methods.

Mike Rodenbaugh
Sr. Legal Director
Yahoo! Inc.

This email may be protected by attorney-client and/or work product privilege.  

 -----Original Message-----
From:   Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent:   Thursday, March 08, 2007 05:12 PM Pacific Standard Time
To:     Avri Doria; Marilyn Cade
Cc:     GNSO RN WG
Subject:        RE: [gnso-rn-wg] 2nd level single character proposal

What if we simply said, "This release should be contingent upon the
development of an appropriate allocation method", deleting "by the
GNSO"?

Chuck Gomes
 
"This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to
which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged,
confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any
unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If
you have received this message in error, please notify sender
immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission." 
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 4:56 PM
> To: Marilyn Cade
> Cc: 'GNSO RN WG'
> Subject: Re: [gnso-rn-wg] 2nd level single character proposal
> 
> hi,
> 
> Well perhaps there is a better way to say it and I am 
> certainly opne to other wordings. As I see it, this WG feeds 
> recommendation up the food chain to the new gTLD group and 
> then they pass it on to the council. I think at that point 
> the council needs to figure out what approach to take.  It 
> would be a policy call in at least the first instance; i.e to 
> accept that there be a new allocation method.  How council 
> decided to proceed with it is rather remote from this WG 
> process, though it does seem to fit into the council's policy 
> mandate on developing policy for the introduction of TLDs.
> 
> a.
> 
> 
> 
> On 8 mar 2007, at 16.41, Marilyn Cade wrote:
> 
> > I am not sure that is quite the clarification that I'd like 
> to see.  
> > I am not
> > sure that the expertise is resident in the GNSO to develop 
> allocation 
> > methods; it is certainly possible to generate ideas about 
> approaches, 
> > thus I do not recommend that the allocation method should 
> be developed 
> > by the GNSO Council. For example, perhaps the better 
> clarification may 
> > be that the GNSO would recommend to the Board that an allocation 
> > method should be developed.
> >
> > Marilyn
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-rn- 
> wg@xxxxxxxxx] 
> > On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> > Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 4:01 PM
> > To: GNSO RN WG
> > Subject: Re: [gnso-rn-wg] 2nd level single character proposal
> >
> >
> > On 8 mar 2007, at 14.43, Avri Doria wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>> 3.3       Single letters and numbers  - second level:  We 
> recommend that
> >>> single letters and numbers be released at the second level in
> >>> future TLDs, and that those currently reserved in existing TLDs
> >>> should be released.
> >>
> >>> Methods for allocating released names were discussed by the Sub-
> >>> group.  Three alternative recommendations are presented:
> >>
> >>>
> >>
> >> Suggested:
> >>
> >> Single letters and numbers  - second level:  We recommend that
> >> single ascii letters and numbers be released at the second level in
> >> future TLDs, and that those currently reserved in existing TLDs
> >> should be released pending the development of an appropriate
> >> allocation method by the GNSO council.
> >
> > I reread it and I think it parses incorrectly and leaves an 
> ambiguity
> > such the in new TLDs they are just released, while existing TLDs one
> > needs new allocation methods.
> >
> > recommended re-write:
> >
> > We recommend that single ascii letters and numbers be 
> released at the
> > second level in future TLDs, and that those currently reserved in
> > existing TLDs should be released.  This release should be contingent
> > upon the development of an appropriate allocation method by the GNSO
> > council.
> >
> >>
> >> Several methods for such allocation were discussed by the sub-
> >> group.    These are available for review by any future group with
> >> the mandate to discuss and recommend allocation methods for 2nd
> >> level single character names.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
>